Mrs Lokia Juma Phiri v SMM Holdings (Private) Ltd (Under Reconstruction) t/a SMMH Properties

The respondent was the owner of 18 Msasa Road, Westonlee, Mashava, which was built to house its employees. The house was allocated to Juma Phiri as a tied house during his employment, with the understanding that the respondent could recall the house upon expiry of the employment contract or death of the employee, whichever came first. Juma Phiri was discharged from employment and subsequently passed away on 20 June 2016. The appellant, Mrs Lokia Juma Phiri, was residing in the house as the wife of the deceased. On 24 August 2016, respondent wrote to appellant notifying her that she would be permitted to stay for one month and must hand over keys by 24 September 2016. Appellant claimed that after her husband left employment, the parties entered into a lease agreement, that respondent owed her husband terminal benefits, and she should be allowed to reside in the house until such benefits were exhausted. The Magistrates Court granted an eviction order on 2 March 2018, and appellant appealed to the High Court.

• Whether the estate of the late Juma Phiri should have been cited as a party to the eviction proceedings
• Whether the death of Juma Phiri terminated the lease agreement
• Whether the appellant, who was not a party to the lease agreement, had any right to occupy the property
• Whether the lease agreement terminated upon death of the employee as per the terms of the agreement

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Where a lease agreement for employee housing contains an express or implied term that the lease terminates upon the death of the employee or expiry of employment (whichever occurs first), such termination is valid and the estate of the deceased employee need not be cited in subsequent eviction proceedings. A person who was not a party to a lease agreement and whose only claim to occupation derives from their relationship with the deceased tenant has no enforceable right to occupy the property against the owner once the lease has terminated. The right of ownership includes the inherent right to exclusive possession, and no person may withhold possession from the owner unless vested with some right enforceable against the owner.

The court made an observation about the unusual citation of the appellant as "Mrs Lokia Juma Phiri," noting that while not justified, the use of "Mrs" appeared to emphasize the basis of her purported right to the house - namely, her status as wife of the deceased. The court remarked: "One only can imagine if all matters would have such titles as Mr, Miss, Mrs and so forth." The court also observed in passing that if a claim for outstanding terminal benefits existed, there were other avenues for exploring such claims other than through continued occupation of the respondent's house.

This case clarifies the position regarding tied employee housing in Zimbabwe and reinforces important principles of property law: (1) that a lease agreement tied to employment can validly terminate upon the employee's death where such terms were agreed; (2) that a person who was not a party to a lease agreement cannot claim rights under that agreement; (3) that ownership carries with it the inherent right to exclusive possession; and (4) that claims for outstanding employment benefits cannot be used as justification for continued unlawful occupation of an employer's property. The case is significant in defining the limits of derivative rights of occupation through a deceased employee-tenant.